Interdisciplinarity

Survey Report for the Global Research Council 2016 Annual Meeting May 2016

Prepared by: Alasdair Gleed, Research Director [email protected]

David Marchant, Research Manager [email protected]

3 Pavilion Lane, Strines, Stockport, Cheshire, Sk6 7GH +44 (0)1663 767 857 djsresearch.co.uk

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 1 2 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Contents

Introduction 4

Executive summary 5 The role and importance of IDR 5 Establishing the right conditions for interdisciplinary working 5 Assessment, evaluation & measurement 5 Careers, training & recognition 6 Recommendations 6

Setting the context 7 The role of IDR 7 Top-down vs. bottom-up structures 7 Establishing the right conditions for interdisciplinary working 8 Assessment, evaluation & measurement 10 Careers, training & recognition 12

Conclusions 14

Case studies 15 Africa 16 Americas 18 Asia-Pacific 24 Europe 32 MENA 38

Appendix 1: background & methodology 44 Background 44 Objectives 44 Methodology 44 Defining interdisciplinary research 45

Appendix 2: references 46

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 3 Introduction

Below we provide a brief summary of the purpose of this report and the methodology used to prepare it.

At the Global Research Council’s fourth Annual Meeting held in Tokyo in 2015, interdisciplinarity was endorsed as a discussion topic for the Annual Meeting in Delhi in May.

This report on interdisciplinarity was commissioned by both Research Councils UK (RCUK) and the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) on behalf of the Global Research Council. It has been prepared by DJS Research, an independent market research company, and is intended to act as a discussion paper for the GRC 2016 Annual Meeting.

For the purpose of this report we will simply define ‘interdisciplinary research’ as research where two or more disciplines work/join together to produce a common body of research.

The aim of the report is to provide an initial overview of what policies and policy environments exist globally amongst a small but balanced cross-section of GRC participants.

We recognise that many funding agencies may not have formalised policies for supporting interdisciplinarity. However, many have embedded what they consider to be good practice throughout their funding policies. The report aims to identify where and how this is happening and provide an initial assessment of success.

DJS conducted an extensive piece of desk research to assess the plethora of literature available on interdisciplinary research (IDR). Specifically, the desk research seeks to summarize the findings of diverse pieces of research, case studies, whitepapers and government policies that address funding agencies’ roles, responsibilities and limitations in facilitating interdisciplinary research.

Alongside this, in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with key decision makers and influencers at GRC members across the GRC regions, to provide case studies of how policies and good working practices have been implemented and adapted to ensure interdisciplinary research is supported and facilitated accordingly.

The remainder of this report is structured as follows: 1. Initially we provide an executive summary, 3. We conclude with a series of individual case which leads on to our recommendations. studies summarising the policies, practices and experiences of the GRC participants 2. We then provide a context-setting global that we interviewed. overview of relevant studies and literature based on the desk research and literature review. We also contrast the literature with examples of policy and practice based on the in-depth ‘case study’ interviews with GRC members.

4 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Executive summary

The role and importance of IDR • The increased complexity associated with Much of the global literature on interdisciplinarity interdisciplinary research means that appropriate argues that it has a key role to play in addressing timescales for funding are an important the grand challenges that society faces. It is also consideration. It is suggested that a 3-year suggested that funders can play a catalytic role in funding timescale is counterproductive because encouraging interdisciplinary research by setting in interdisciplinary projects, the start-up phase and articulating such ‘grand challenges’ that can last at least 2 years. require interdisciplinary solutions: • Funders have the potential to fulfil a capacity- • Our research and much of the literature suggests building role, for example using or facilitating that top down thematic funding programmes are training or infrastructure. Planning and one of the most common approaches adopted implementation of interdisciplinary programmes by funders to encourage interdisciplinarity. should enable members to meet in order to exchange ideas, establish common terminology, • There is also a consensus that researcher build trust and understanding. This also extends led ‘bottom up’ approaches are required, to the design of physical and social spaces to foster and funding agencies should support such the development of interdisciplinary networks and approaches despite the potential risks facilitate collaborative working across disciplines. associated with the most innovative ideas. Assessment, evaluation & measurement • At the same time, interdisciplinary research The establishment of fair and effective assessments should be viewed as a means to an end and of interdisciplinary research proposals is clearly a not an end in itself. Several funding agencies challenge for many of the funding agencies involved emphasised that practices and policies towards in the qualitative depth interviews; there is a strong interdisciplinarity should be driven by the consensus that there is a need to modify peer review required outcomes and scientific demand. procedures to ensure that they are better suited for IDR purposes. Establishing the right conditions for interdisciplinary working Assessment approaches have been adapted in a number of ways amongst the funding agencies There is widespread recognition that more needs in our study; this includes the establishment of to be considered than simply articulating the specialist panels composed of researchers from ‘grand challenges’ that require a research based different fields; panels comprising of reviewers solution. Interdisciplinary research can be complex with multidisciplinary experience; flexible review and risky, and special consideration needs to processes where potential projects can be evaluated be given to the ‘architecture’ of interdisciplinary by more than one panel; two-tier screening processes programmes. comprising of an initial document review of the Whilst many of the funding agencies we spoke written application and a second panel review with to have developed programmes based around panellists involved in both processes. themes that lend themselves to interdisciplinary Many interviewed funding agencies admitted that approaches (and that often actively encourage even with adapted approaches, the review process them), developing effective structures to facilitate remains challenging. This is partly due to a lack effective interdisciplinary working is something of reviewers who understand how to evaluate that many admit grappling with; practices are interdisciplinary research, and the related circular evolving, often in reaction to complex challenges, problem that there is a need to expose more and in many cases informed by ongoing learnings reviewers to interdisciplinary projects. A number of about the barriers involved and how these can funding agencies stated that the limited number of be addressed. appropriate evaluators is leading to more extensive Much of the literature argues that funders should international collaboration to increase the pool. not assume that the conditions required for End-of-award evaluation of interdisciplinary interdisciplinarity can happen naturally without projects is perhaps an even bigger challenge. proactive support; instead consideration should Most funding agencies interviewed admit that be given to the practical steps and mechanisms they have not established fully effective ways necessary to foster and support research across to evaluate the performance of interdisciplinary disciplinary boundaries: research. Again, practice is evolving and funders are learning from experience.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 5 There is some recognition of a need to treat Recommendations projects on a unique basis, look beyond ‘standard’ 1: Currently, informal practices that are evolving measures, employing project specific metrics and through trial and error are much more Key Performance Indicators (as well as qualitative widespread than formal embedded policies assessment) to monitor performance against towards interdisciplinarity. Increased sharing project specific goals. of experiences and best practice between GRC participants is one means of ensuring Careers, training & recognition that funding policies to effectively support Funding agencies should consider the role interdisciplinary working are developed. that they can play in promoting the value of interdisciplinary research, improving recognition, 2: GRC participants should be active in and ensuring that interdisciplinary researchers encouraging interdisciplinary research by are not discouraged or disadvantaged. Some setting and articulating top-down thematic fundamental cultural challenges need to be ‘grand challenges’ that require interdisciplinary considered: solutions, as well as supporting researcher led bottom-up approaches. • Many funding agencies interviewed recognized that there is work to be done to change the 3: GRC participants should allow for funding mind-set of researchers, to make them less risk support over sufficient timeframes for teams to averse towards interdisciplinary research. organise, and at an appropriate scale to provide support to teams addressing the complexities of • Disciplines are used to competing rather than working across disciplinary boundaries. collaborating, and finding leaders to establish and foster interdisciplinary relationships is 4: GRC participants should work to encourage and considered a challenge. facilitate the design of physical and social spaces to foster the development of interdisciplinary • Although some feel that the situation may be networks and facilitate working across disciplines. gradually improving, interdisciplinary research is not seen with the same prestige as disciplinary 5: GRC participants should consider how proposal research from a publication or academic career review mechanisms can be adapted to ensure perspective. fair, relevant and appropriate approaches that are responsive to the purpose and potential The majority of funding agencies interviewed impact of successful interdisciplinary research. do not appear to have specific programmes or policies to foster training or infrastructure 6: Adaptations and flexibility in end-of-award dedicated to interdisciplinary working, although evaluation of grand challenge programmes in some countries there are specific research should also be considered, employing project centres and facilities which are geared towards specific metrics and Key Performance Indicators facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration. A (KPIs) as well as qualitative criteria to monitor minority of funders are also providing incentives performance against project specific goals. for workshops and seminars across disciplinary borders. 7: GRC participants could do more to promote, help develop and conduct continuous training There is potential for funders to play a greater role and capacity building for researchers and in developing and conducting interdisciplinary institutions, around designing and reviewing training and capacity building for both early stage proposals for funding and evaluating the impact and senior researchers. There is also an argument of interdisciplinary research. Support for training that training in IDR should be extended to funding in leadership, communication and management agencies themselves, to improve understanding skills should also be offered to increase capacity of its nuances and challenges. and capability in IDR.

Changing cultures and mind-sets is not an 8: GRC participants should actively work easy thing to do, and funding agencies should towards contributing to improved awareness consider setting an example by promoting key of the value and necessity of interdisciplinary success stories and the value of interdisciplinarity, research, promoting key success stories and and engaging with universities and publishers the value of interdisciplinarity, and engaging to work together on better recognition of and with policy makers, universities and publishers opportunities for interdisciplinary research. to work together on better recognition of and opportunities for interdisciplinary research.

6 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Setting the context

The following section provides a context-setting Whilst this ‘top-down’ approach to interdisciplinary global overview of relevant studies and literature, research will allow for structure and a common based on our desk research and literature review. theme of evaluation, it is felt that there is a We also contrast the literature with examples of need to account for and encourage ‘bottom-up’ actual policy and practice based on the in-depth approaches as well. ‘case study’ interviews with GRC members. In a report for the Australian Council of Learned The role of IDR Academies, Bammer (2012, p22) describes several methods for encouraging ‘bottom-up’ approaches, There is a wealth of literature arguing the including: important role interdisciplinary research has to play, particularly in addressing complex • ‘Setting aside a proportion of funding for and societal challenges. interdisciplinary research bringing together science, technology, engineering and In its response to the British Academy’s call mathematics on the one hand and the for evidence on interdisciplinarity (2015, p.1), humanities and social sciences on the other. The Royal Society argues the following: “Many of the major challenges that society • Supporting permanent teams to investigate faces today will require solutions developed completely new interdisciplinary science such through interdisciplinary research and as artificial photosynthesis and biological cross-disciplinary collaboration. Improving computers. support for and addressing the barriers to this work could contribute to major scientific • Making untied funding available to young breakthroughs at the interface of disciplines, researchers to allow them pursue ’wild’ ideas. develop new technologies and ultimately support the economy and develop novel • Funding an exploratory development phase solutions to societal challenges.”i for interdisciplinary research, preceding a full formal grant application.’ iv

Top-down vs. bottom-up structures There is an extensive body of literature which It is widely recognised that appropriate funding reinforces the argument that identifying questions programs and vehicles can be designed to that require interdisciplinary approaches in order encourage interdisciplinary research, depending to be tackled effectively is a key means by which on their criteria and objectives. funding agencies can drive interdisciplinary research. For example, a European Commission sponsored study of interdisciplinary research At the same time, there is recognition that the policies and practices across eight countries more innovative ‘grand challenge’ research identified that policy and practice aimed at problems carry a perceived risk. However, some interdisciplinary research often has a ‘top commentators argue that a policy of ‘playing it down’, thematic approach.ii safe’ is likely to stifle innovation.

Lyall et al. (2011, p.44) state the following Blackwell et al (2009, p.54) note that: regarding the role of funding agencies: ‘It may be the case that measures taken to reduce risk of project failure increase the risk of innovation ‘Funders play a critical role in stimulating failure, through sponsoring projects that are interdisciplinary initiatives. Ideally…the insufficiently innovative or adventurous. This is number of programmes that mandate a constant concern of public agencies, which are interdisciplinarity would grow, particularly as obliged to ‘play it safe’ in their stewardship of complex problems become more pressing public funds, desiring to make every project a (as in the case of many environmental issues). success. Ironically, this can be the worst possible This entails funders identifying a focus which use of public funds, if careful stewardship by a needs an interdisciplinary approach in order funding agency prevents the creative innovations to be tackled effectively and asking questions that justified a funding programme in the v that require individuals to work together across first place.’ disciplines. Funders can play a truly catalytic role, for instance when problems are just beginning to coalesce.iii

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 7 Establishing the right conditions Funding Agency Perspective for interdisciplinary working Most of the funding agencies we interviewed Top-down and bottom-up approaches may were open in stating that they do not have have potential to drive interdisciplinarity and in formal policies relating to interdisciplinarity, turn innovation; however, there is more to be but do have practices to encourage and considered than the question of ‘grand challenges’ support it. While the National Science that requires research based solutions. Special Foundation (NSF) in the USA has specific consideration needs to be given to how these policy for interdisciplinary research in place, types of funding programmes and vehicles are the European Research Council (ERC) in designed. Lyall et al. (2013, p.2) describe some Europe and the Australian Research Council of the considerations around the ‘architecture’ (ARC) for instance are both in the process of interdisciplinary programmes as follows: of formalizing relevant policies. ‘This may lead to the launch of new funding The most commonly cited practice is the schemes where they have a role in establishing establishment of funding programs that the architecture of an interdisciplinary programme set the grand challenges that require through, for example, the choice of leader, interdisciplinary solutions. These schemes location, streams of funding, and mechanisms often lend themselves to interdisciplinary for accountability by establishing appropriate approaches, and in many cases actively evaluation processes at various levels. Funders encourage them. will often fulfil a research capacity-building function by providing additional training or The ‘Challenges’ vehicle at the Ministry infrastructure. All of these aspects may combine of Business, Innovation and Employment to facilitate the emergence of longer term impacts (MBIE) in New Zealand and the Deutsche from the research that they have funded.’ vi Forschungsgesellschaft’s (DFG) Coordinated Programs in Germany as well as the NSF Funding agencies have a pivotal role to play in program Integrated NSF Support Promoting supporting interdisciplinary research and it has Interdisciplinary Research and Education been argued that agencies need to develop (INSPIRE) are examples of such ‘top-down’ specific funding vehicles and mechanisms to approaches. encourage and facilitate interdisciplinarity.

A number of the funding agencies that we Adunmo et al (2013, p.7) suggest a need for interviewed did stress that interdisciplinarity ‘increased flexibility in funding frameworks, should be a means to an end and not an preparatory and pilot projects for overcoming end in itself, however. It was suggested disciplinary biases, sufficiently long timeframes, that practices and policies towards sustained support – especially when requesting interdisciplinarity should be driven by the impact measures – and, for multiannual, multi- required outcomes and scientific demand. programme frameworks, a substantial margin for new developments should be factored in’.vii One consequence of the ‘top down’ approach is that in many instances the approach to interdisciplinarity appears to be evolving, often in reaction to the need to meet complex challenges, and in many cases informed by ongoing learnings about the barriers involved and how these can be addressed.

8 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Appropriate timescales Bammer (2012, p.22) argues that team-based According to much of the literature, the increased interdisciplinary research ‘requires basic support complexity associated with interdisciplinary to enable members to meet in order to exchange research means that appropriate timescales ideas, negotiate epistemological differences, for funding are an important consideration. establish common terminology and build trust – what some called ‘glue money’. Different kinds In their ‘Short Guide for Funders of of teams require different amounts of support, Interdisciplinary Research’, Marsden et al. (2011, depending on size, diversity, the kind of problem p.2) suggest that researchers often see an inherent being addressed and so on.’ xiii risk with the additional time and effort required to develop effective interdisciplinary teams and In a German paper, Straub and Schedlowski the possibility that this may discourage funders (2009, p.33) highlight that facilities are also to invest: ‘individuals do not want to be penalised an important consideration: for proposing interdisciplinary approaches which, ‘In joint projects the aspect of the Core Facility by definition, are unconventional to individuals for providing techniques should be brought even ensconced firmly in disciplines.’viii more into focus. For this purpose, the subsidized university should be offering cross-disciplinary This is supported further by Straub and core facilities which remain in place for a period of Schedlowski (2009), who argue that the start-up at least 10 years. As part of the funding of a joint phase of interdisciplinary projects lasts at least research project at a university these Core Facilities 2 years, rendering the usual 3-year funding for should be a central element of the funding, so single discipline projects counterproductive.’ix that the intra-disciplinary facilities offered by the ‘If we want to see interdisciplinary working in high- university can be secured and kept up to date profile journals’, write Straub and Schedlowski (this applies to the personnel structure as well (2009, p.32), ‘the funding period must be as to the technical equipment)’. xiv extended to 5 years’.x Dzeng (2013) also writes that a key aspect to In addition, Lyall et al (2011, p.44) suggest that the achieving interdisciplinarity is through the interdisciplinary integration process needs to be design of physical and social spaces to foster facilitated by support opportunities for interaction the development of interdisciplinary networks: throughout the course of the grant, which ‘may ‘Creating spaces where people continuously come require additional funding and time for integrative into contact with people outside their discipline in activities and personnel’. xi natural, casual social settings over and over again, helps develop social networks that eventually Community & capacity building become the source of intellectual inspiration Much of the literature also recognises that and creativity’. xv funders have the potential to fulfil a capacity- building role, for example using or facilitating In their paper on the challenges of funding training and infrastructure. interdisciplinary research, Thomas König and Michael E. Gorman (2015, p.9) highlight a specific Lyall et al. (2013, p.10) warn against making the example from the United States, where assumption that the conditions required for ‘the National Science Foundation funds research interdisciplinarity can happen naturally without centres that tackle initiatives too large for one proactive support: ‘There is often a tendency or even several investigators; these centers often to assume that networking, community – and are interdisciplinary. The “Integrated Graduate capacity-building will automatically occur as a Education and Training” award was designed result of participating in a research programme, to give graduate students integrated training in contrast to a more deliberative and reflective across research programs from different approach to achieving these ends. However, there disciplines or sub-disciplines; this program are key practical organisational steps that large has been replaced by an “Integrated Research scale interdisciplinary research initiatives can take Experience” solicitation, which could be either to promote and support collaborative working disciplinary or interdisciplinary’. xvi and integration. Pro-active management is crucial throughout an interdisciplinary initiative in order to achieve genuine interdisciplinary integration.’ xii

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 9 Assessment, evaluation & measurement Luukonen (2015, p.7) raises key questions if The sheer volume of papers on peer review peer review is used, in particular concerning implies that this is a key concern for interdisciplinary the type of changes or modifications that the researchers and agencies seeking to establish fair funding bodies have made to avoid a potential assessments of interdisciplinary research proposals. conservative or other bias. ‘To what extent do they use panel reviews or do they use remote Research conducted by Luukkonen (2015, reviewers as a complement? Do they use specific p.10) establishes that ‘peer review remains the means to ensure that the reviewers provide major mechanism for selecting funded projects recommendations to fund unconventional even in schemes dedicated to ground-breaking proposals? Is consensus required, and what research.’ xvii are the means to achieving a consensus?’ xxiii

Koenig and Gorman (2015, p.10) confirm that Lyall et al. (2011, p.52) recommend the ‘the most common decision-making principle ‘establishment of an interdisciplinary reviewers’ adopted by funding agencies is the peer review, college (consisting of individuals expert in a range or ‘merit review’ as the NSF refers to it’. xviii of interdisciplinary areas) to address the common challenge of finding reviewers who are sympathetic In Luukkonen’s research on peer review (2015, to interdisciplinary research and understand how p.21), the following factors were identified as to evaluate it both rigorously and appropriately’. xxiv being conducive to the selection of ground- Indeed, the understanding is that ‘until a certain breaking ideas: level of interdisciplinary capacity is built, peer review represents a chicken and egg situation as • ‘generalist (often interdisciplinary) panels interdisciplinary reviewers will only come about with panellists who have experience in if there are successful interdisciplinary scientists evaluating ground-breaking ideas who become reviewers.’ (p.45) • criteria emphasising the innovative and On a practical note, Marsden et al. (2011, p.3) unconventional nature of the research suggest the following in considering the to be funded composition and management of review processes: • requiring short essay-like vision or research • Training for funding agency programme staff, idea papers rather than proper research so that they are more able to deal with such issues plans, especially in the first stage but in and to distinguish genuine interdisciplinarity many schemes overall • Alignment of goals and criteria as stated in calls • emphasising both ideas and people or only for proposals, with instructions for reviewers people and their creativity and ability to and panels conduct radically innovative research.’ xix • Including individuals experienced in Critically, Luukkonen (2015, p.22) observes that interdisciplinarity as panel members the funding organisations assessed ‘make a serious attempt to modify peer review procedures • Take time at the beginning of a panel meeting to ensure that they are better suited for the to develop common understanding of the purpose.’ xx programme and criteria by which interdisciplinary bids are to be judged xxv Koenig and Gorman (2015, p.11) identify the three most sensitive aspects of operationalizing the peer review principle to be the ‘criteria along which proposals are valued, the experts (peers) who are invited to do this valuation, and the way the ratings of the experts are channeled into a funding decision’ xxi. In their assessment of the ERC and the NSF), Koenig and Gorman (2015, p.12) conclude that ‘both agencies rely mostly on review panels in their final decision-making’, which are ‘generally expected to provide more reliable and better ratings than reviewers and are also expected to do a better job at identifying interdisciplinary research.’ xxii

10 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report In contrast to the considerable volume of Funding Agency Perspective literature on peer review and assessment of interdisciplinary research proposals, far Assessment, evaluation and measurement fewer papers were identified that assess of interdisciplinary research is one area funding agencies’ approaches evaluating that many of the funding agencies we the performance of interdisciplinary research. interviewed admitted grappling with, and an area that is evolving to cope with Lyall et al. (2011, p.45) write extensively on the the challenges involved. issue, concluding that ‘end-of-award evaluation of interdisciplinary large-scale investments needs Assessment approaches have been to be appropriate’. Furthermore, they highlight adapted in a number of ways, including that, ‘while strong publications will be sought as the establishment of specialist panels measures of academic rigor, other less tangible composed of researchers from different indicators might suggest that added value from the fields; panels comprising of reviewers interdisciplinarity is (or is not) being achieved.’ xxvi with multidisciplinary experience; flexible review processes where potential projects Blackwell et al. (2009, p.83) concur with this view, can be evaluated by more than one panel; recommending that ‘funders of interdisciplinary two-tier screening processes comprising activity need to move beyond a narrow focus on of an initial document review of the written instrumental outcomes, and broaden their palette application and a second panel review with of metrics devoting more resources to capturing panellists involved in both processes. informal as well as formal outcomes, across a spectrum of outcomes, capacity and processes.’ xvii Many funding agencies admitted that even with adapted approaches, the review process remains challenging – partly due to a lack of reviewers generally, and also Funding Agency Perspective due to a circular problem that there is Most funding agencies admit that they have a need to expose more reviewers to not established fully effective ways to evaluate interdisciplinary projects. the performance of interdisciplinary research.

Interestingly, a number of funding Again, practice is evolving and agencies are agencies (e.g. Consejo Nacional de learning from experience. There is some Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) in recognition of a need to treat projects on Mexico, the Ministry of Business, Innovation a unique basis, and look beyond ‘standard’ and Employment (MBIE) in New Zealand, measures (e.g. of publication/citation). the Office of Sponsored Research (OSR) at King Abdullah University of Science Some funding programmes employ & Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia) project specific metrics and KPIs to monitor stated that the limited pool of evaluators performance against specific goals (e.g. is leading to increased international MBIE in New Zealand). The NSF have advisory collaboration to increase the pool. committees to review programmes and conduct external evaluations.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 11 Careers, training & recognition Encouraging early career interdisciplinarity A further consideration for funding agencies is the The career paths within interdisciplinary research role that they can play in promoting the value of can be uncertain, and those researchers with the interdisciplinary research, improving recognition, potential to work across multiple disciplines need and ensuring that interdisciplinary researchers are to be given extra encouragement and support in not discouraged or disadvantaged. order to play an integrative role.

Changing culture & mind-sets A number of suggestions are put forward in the A recently published book, Rethinking literature regarding the role funding agencies Interdisciplinarity Across The Social Sciences can play in ensuring that interdisciplinary And Neurosciences (2015), suggests ‘less focus researchers in the early stages of their career on structures and funding for interdisciplinarity, are not disadvantaged by rigid structures and more on the everyday highs and lows of within departments or by publishing outlets. xxviii collaboration.’ Lyall et al. (2011, p.3) suggest ‘facilitating the The authors argue the importance of recognising development of a cadre of early career and more that the challenges of interdisciplinarity senior interdisciplinary researchers by hosting extend to the mind-sets and culture of the community-building events across different research community: ‘What if the challenges of interdisciplinary capacity-building schemes and interdisciplinary work are less to do with obvious investments. An Interdisciplinary Funders Forum structural issues, and more to do with fuzzy, similar to the Environmental Research Funders opaque zones of feelings, emotions and social Forum (now part of LWEC) or the UK Strategic Forum for the Social Sciences could promote interaction? … How would our understanding xxx of – and capacity to improve – interdisciplinary shared learning’. research change if we focused less on funders Straub and Schedlowski (2009, p.33) suggest and journals and universities, and more on the that ‘research funders should ensure in mundane, day-to-day lives of collaborative collaborative projects that interdisciplinary researchers?... This agenda isn’t just about teaching concepts are integrated (which is elegant structures and novel funding schemes, already required by the DFG of specific research but about the day-to-day, here-and-now relations areas). In addition, funders could also establish and feelings through which collaborative work long-term interdisciplinary teaching concepts xxix gets done.’ at the universities, which go beyond the usual The mind-set of researchers is frequently cited as funding period of a typical joint project….the a barrier to interdisciplinarity in the literature; the increased stabilization of the interdisciplinary most common examples relate to the perceptions aspect in the universities should be reinforced of risk associated with interdisciplinary projects, with the opening of new career paths. Otherwise, the interdisciplinary route will stop at the and the frequent allegation that researchers xxxi feel that single discipline publications are disciplinary boundaries.’ deemed more prestigious than those of an interdisciplinary nature.

12 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Careers & recognition Beyond the training stage, the issue of career Funding Agency Perspective progression is also highlighted in the literature. Most of the funding agencies interviewed In particular, it is suggested that research funding recognized that there is work to be done agencies should engage with universities and to change the mind-set of researchers, publishers to work together on better recognition to make them less risk averse towards of and opportunities for interdisciplinary research. interdisciplinary research. Disciplines are used to competing rather than collaborating, Marsden et al (2011, p.3) suggest that ‘when and finding leaders to establish and foster considering career possibilities, funders need to interdisciplinary relationships is also be aware of the constraints imposed by universities, considered a challenge. with the suggestion that Research Councils (and universities) provide more recognition for ECRs and Some funding agencies also highlighted PhDs who take on interdisciplinary work, urging the related need to take steps to address that interdisciplinary researchers should never the perception that interdisciplinary xxxii be considered ‘second tier’. research is not seen with the same prestige as disciplinary research from a publication In addition to this, there is also the issue, perspective. highlighted by some commentators including Marzano et al (2006, p.9), that ‘interdisciplinary The majority do not have specific publications were less prestigious than single programs or policies to foster training or xxxiii discipline ones.’ This is something which infrastructure dedicated to interdisciplinary needs to be overcome in order to encourage working, although in some countries there more individual researchers to commence on, are specific research centers and facilities or continue down, the interdisciplinary route. which are geared towards facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration. Similarly, Strang and McLeish (2015, p.4) suggest that ‘There is a need to expand the There are exceptions – for example range of outlets for academic publication that DFG in Germany works to facilitate value and recognise high quality interdisciplinary interdisciplinary working by providing xxxiv research’. incentives for workshops and seminars across disciplinary borders. These are perhaps some of the more challenging issues to address, emphasising that facilitating interdisciplinary research is not simply about asking the big questions that require an interdisciplinary approach, or the mechanisms and structures adopted. Issues for funding agencies to consider extend to capacity-building, developing knowledge and skills, facilitating networks and changing the mind-set of the research community.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 13 Conclusions

The aim of this survey report is to provide an initial Many funding agencies recognized that there overview of what policies and policy environments is work to be done to change the mind-set of exist on the issue of interdisciplinary research. researchers, to make them less risk averse towards The findings are based on a small but globally interdisciplinary research. Although some feel balanced cross-section of GRC participants. that the situation may be gradually improving, interdisciplinary research is not seen with the Many of the funding agencies have developed same prestige as disciplinary research from programmes based around themes that lend a publication or academic career perspective. themselves to interdisciplinary approaches. However, effective structures to facilitate effective The majority of funding agencies do not interdisciplinary working is something that many appear to have specific programmes or policies admit grappling with. Indeed, practices are to foster training or infrastructure dedicated evolving, often in reaction to complex challenges, to interdisciplinary working, although in some and in many cases informed by ongoing learnings countries there are specific research centres and about the barriers involved and how these can facilities which are geared towards facilitating be addressed. interdisciplinary collaboration.

Our research suggests that top down thematic In short, informal practices that are evolving funding programmes are one of the most common through trial and error are currently much more approaches adopted by funders to encourage widespread amongst GRC participants than formal interdisciplinarity. embedded policies towards interdisciplinarity.

However, there is also a consensus that researcher Increased sharing of experiences and best led ‘bottom up’ approaches are required, and practice between GRC participants is one means funding agencies should support such approaches of ensuring that funding policies to effectively despite the potential risks associated with the support interdisciplinary working are developed. most innovative ideas.

At the same time, interdisciplinary research should be viewed as a means to an end and not an end in itself. Several funding agencies emphasised that practices and policies towards interdisciplinarity should be driven by the required outcomes and scientific demand.

The establishment of fair and effective assessments of interdisciplinary research proposals is a challenge for many funding agencies. Indeed, assessment approaches have been adapted in a number of ways, yet many funding agencies admitted that the review process remains challenging nevertheless, which is partly due to a lack of reviewers who understand how to evaluate interdisciplinary research.

End-of-award evaluation of interdisciplinary projects is perhaps an even bigger challenge, and most funding agencies admit that they have not established fully effective ways to evaluate the performance of interdisciplinary research.

14 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Case studies

Each case study included in this section of the report is based on a depth interview with a representative of the profiled Africa funding agency. Furthermore, in some cases publically available NCST (Malawi) information provided by the representative was also assessed when establishing key background and policy information for Americas the case study. NSF (USA) In light of the fact that funding agencies’ approaches to facilitating CONACYT (Mexico) interdisciplinary research vary considerably, and are indeed Colciencias (Colombia) dependent on political, economical and environmental factors within their geographical remit, the respective case studies do Asia-Pacific not always lend themselves to comparative analysis. Nevertheless, MBIE (New Zealand) we have sought to structure the content of each case study such ARC (Australia) that key learnings from interdisciplinary research policy DST (India) are immediately accessible. JSPS (Japan)

Each case study follows the structure detailed below: Europe • Background to the funding agency MRC (UK) • Interdisciplinary Research – funding mechanisms DFG (Germany) and programs ERC (European Union)

• Challenges in establishing the right conditions for MENA interdisciplinary research OSR (Saudi-Arabia) • Key learnings for future policy deliberations TAASTI (Tunisia) QNRF (Qatar) DJS Research, RCUK and the GRC would like to thank all those who participated in the research. A list of participating GRC members is provided on the right.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 15 NCST funds research in accordance with Background national research agendas and encourages proposals in areas that have been identified The National Commission for Science and as critical for the development of Malawi. Technology advises the Government and other stakeholders on all science and technology matters in order to achieve “Sometimes we get some applicants who have a science and technology-led development. cross cutting issues; they submit proposals The Commission charts out the national that are interdisciplinary in nature.” direction and establishes national priorities in science and technology development in relation to socio-economic development NCST does not have specific policies needs. Furthermore, the Commission sources dedicated to interdisciplinary research, funding from within and outside Malawi to but applies policies from various research finance the national research and development agendas to screen as well as evaluate effort and allocates the funds to research proposals that are interdisciplinary in nature. institutions based on set priorities.

The government, on an annual basis, “Now that we have been exposed to issues advances close to half a million dollars to of IDR, it is becoming more pertinent for the NCST and these funds are used for policies to adjust and accommodate. We will research in the country at the moment. have a review of the policies early next year.”

Assessment, evaluation Interdisciplinary Research & measurement

The facilitation and appropriate funding Assessment of interdisciplinary research is seen as vital by NCST. “Once we receive the research proposals we set up working groups or teams of individuals “We look at IDR as having the potential to be that would form the evaluation team and we revolutionary, to find solutions to the issues ensure that the team has the background our country is facing. We are going through suited to deal with the application.” difficult times, facing issues of climate change, draught, hunger, diseases, so we are trying to look at IDR as an avenue to address some of Panels National Commission for Science and Technology (NCST)National Commission and Technology Science for the challenges that we are having.”

A main reviewer with expertise in the NCST has limited experience in promoting relevant area is appointed to work alongside interdisciplinary research, but is seeking reviewers from different backgrounds. to create the right environment within Only in specific instances is a peer reviewer which interdisciplinary research can be asked to be involved. appropriately promoted.

“In the event that the assembled team is not “Basically we have not yet had any funding in able to make their own recommendation interdisciplinary research, but we have had or review of the proposal, we may refer instances whereby some of the research that the proposal further; maybe to invite other applicants are conducting has or may have people who can assist in that area.” some interdisciplinarity in it.”

The panel that is assembled does not include members of NCST. Panel members are invited from academia, but also include public officials and government administrators.

16 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Evaluation Challenges in establishing Researchers and the NCST sign a contract which specifies the expectations from both the right conditions for sides. The agreement incorporates a number interdisciplinary research of issues, including when funds will be disbursed and in what amounts, as well as the deliverables at every stage. Reviewers of the right calibre

“A fair review of an interdisciplinary research “At each stage we expect a report on proposal is a challenge because sometimes what has been achieved, before the next individuals that we identify are only captains, funds are disbursed.” but they may not be that familiar with something that is really cross cutting and requires knowledge in both areas.” “Normally there are about 3 to 4 stages, but it varies on the type and complexity of the research we are doing. Most projects are Aligning insights from multiple reviewers funded over two years.”

“To integrate concepts that arise from “When it comes to IDR, we borrow what is different disciplines or theories is a barrier. available from the current system, but once We struggle to link concepts from different the policies have been reworked, it is possible investigators or reviewers.” that we will have more stages for IDR.”

Building capacity Careers, training & recognition “How do we bring together individuals from different backgrounds to understand tools, NCST understands itself to have a key role concepts, perspectives or theories from to play in building capacity and training other disciplines to advance knowledge and researchers in interdisciplinary thinking create some solutions?” and cross-discipline collaboration.

“Granting councils have a big role to play. This is why we are here, and we would like Key learnings to encourage multidisciplinary research. • Top-down structures are important in order We facilitate and support research in the to identify priority issues and set the grand country, but perhaps we need to emphasise challenges that require interdisciplinary the need for support in IDR from proposal solutions. Research funding agencies should writing, but also grants, even including be actively involved in the articulation of research methods.” challenges as well as the provision of funding for interdisciplinary research. • IDR has a key role to play in addressing grand International challenges and achieving societal impact. collaboration • Relevant processes, including peer review and research quality and impact “We have a number of agencies that we work assessments need to allow for consideration with internationally. We announce anything and recognition of the nature of, and issues that will provide an opportunity to Malawian involved in, research across disciplinary researchers and will forward calls to various boundaries. stakeholders in the country.” • Funding agencies should promote, help develop and conduct continuous training and capacity building for researchers and institutions engaged in interdisciplinary research.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 17 Assessment, evaluation Background & measurement The National Science Foundation (NSF) Review system is an independent US government agency created in 1950 “to promote the progress INSPIRE proposals, like most NSF proposals, of science; to advance the national health, are researcher-led, or bottom-up. prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defence…” The NSF has an annual budget of US$7.5 billion (2016) and Only internal merit review is required for is the funding source for almost a quarter INSPIRE proposals, but NSF Programme of all federally supported basic research Officers may elect to obtain external conducted by America’s colleges and reviews to inform their decision. universities.

The Office of International Science and Co-review is very common in core Engineering section (OISE) serves as programmes at NSF. a focal point for international science and engineering activities both inside 1 and outside NSF . In applications answering specific calls for proposals, Principal Investigators (PIs) may indicate that the proposal should be Interdisciplinary Research co-reviewed with another programme. Interdisciplinary research is well-established across the entire Foundation, with many Alternatively, Programme Directors may different mechanisms and specific policies decide proposals lend themselves to be for IDR. co-reviewed by another programme. The NSF has a unique awards programme dedicated to encouraging interdisciplinary “There’s a lot of [co-reviewing] that goes on research: day to day at NSF…Often when a PI submits The Integrated NSF Support Promoting a proposal they may not even realise that Interdisciplinary Research and Education as Programme Directors we often look at it (INSPIRE) is a cross-foundational awards and go to other programmes and ask them program established in 2012/13 to ‘support if they would be interested in co-reviewing.” bold interdisciplinary projects in all NSF- supported areas of science, engineering and education research’. Each programme recommends reviewers from their field to review a proposal. Interdisciplinary proposals often go to INSPIRE awards up to US$1million grants two panels in two different programmes. to high risk, high reward interdisciplinary proposals. Panels make recommendations and Programme Directors decide which Other cross-foundational initiatives often proposals to support. If both panels come about from interests in the community. and both programme directors like a proposal, funding is negotiated between the two programmes. Current nationwide big initiative on food, energy, water nexus that came about from many earlier interdisciplinary programmes Evaluation in the sustainability field. NSF has an evaluation and assessment section, advisory committees to review programmes and also conduct external evaluations. “A few years back we had a big initiative on sustainability, and at its height there were seventeen different interdisciplinary “One of the questions we always ask as proposals. Each of those programmes was a funding agency [for big cross-foundational managed by a cross-section of programme initiatives] is ‘is this funding needed or could directors throughout the Foundation and this programme have been done through the panels were very interdisciplinary.” normal co-funding programmes?” The OfficeFoundation (NSF) NationalScience of InternationalScience & (OISE), Engineering

18 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report 1 https://www.nsf.gov/od/oise/about.jsp Successful IDR programmes are often Challenges in establishing considered to be those that continue past their original term. the right conditions for interdisciplinary research

“Usually these cross-foundational initiatives Interdisciplinary proposals can have a set life and then we go onto review badly at panel review something else, but that [successful project] was something that people around the Foundation saw a need to continue.” The INSPIRE program is intended to address more complicated scientific problems and encourages proposals that may be considered Careers, training to be at a disadvantage in a standard NSF & recognition review process.

Education is seen as key at NSF, and it is Differing perspectives on interdisciplinarity important to allow opportunities for early career researchers to get involved in IDR. Researchers can be protective of their core discipline and do not always agree that an “We often hear from young researchers IDR proposal sits totally within their field. that it is very hard [to get IDR published] because they have to prove themselves in their field first. More senior researchers “I think sometimes people are very conservative, have a little bit more freedom.” especially when budgets are tight. ‘Why are we supporting this that has to do with Social Science’ and then Social Sciences will Funding agencies should play a role in say ‘Why doesn’t Geoscience support this’?” encouraging academic institutions to support IDR. True integration of the team Capacity building “You can’t just put a social scientist on your Larger awards are strongly encouraged to proposal so that you check that box. They need have an assessment component, a specific to be really integrated into the actual proposal co-ordinator and an advisory committee and the project. It’s hard to do that right.” from the outset.

International Key learnings collaboration • IDR plays a key role in addressing high risk, transformative research problems, OISE conduct many international IDR and funding agencies must accept the programmes, and have a specific inherent risk of failure. programme, Partnerships for International • Researcher-led approaches to interdisciplinary Research and Education (PIRE), to support research continue to require funding agency international activities across all NSF support, and can themselves identify supported disciplines. transformative ‘grand challenges’. • Funding agencies need to implement specific systems, practices and mechanisms PIRE programmes often lend themselves to truly facilitate interdisciplinary research. more to IDR than standard programmes. • A cultural shift in the mind-set is required to promote interdisciplinarity both within the research ecosystem, and within academia. Over a dozen countries joined from across the world in recent solicitations – • Interdisciplinary researchers in their early if a project gets funded each country career stage should be encouraged to supports its own researchers. conduct IDR and not be disadvantaged by departmental or publication structures.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 19 Agreements with Spain, Colombia & Chile Background are in place to enable access to a wider pool of evaluators. The National Council on Science and Technology (CONACYT) is Mexico’s entity in charge of the promotion of scientific and “We’re working along with some other technological activities, setting government countries to create what we’re calling policies for these matters, and granting a bank of Ibero-American evaluators.” scholarships for postgraduate studies.

The national pool of evaluators is not big Interdisciplinary Research enough so there is a risk of the evaluator knowing the researcher proposing the While CONACYT has not defined a policy project, creating a conflict of interest. for interdisciplinary research, but considers itself to be ‘reacting to a new situation and defining policies as we move along’, it has two “We try to overcome that by internationalising.” specific calls for proposals of an interdisciplinary nature, as well as a call for basic research which accepts multidisciplinary research proposals: Evaluation

A researcher’s practical experience in Scientific Development Projects working with other disciplines is evaluated. to Address National Problems

Specific criteria have been developed to The grant was launched in 2013 to deal evaluate interdisciplinary projects, including with social challenges, with an annual the coalition of the members of the project, budget of US$21 million. as well as the proposed working processes.

Research Thematic Networks “They have to demonstrate that the different disciplines work together and not apart, before finding ways to put the puzzle It was established in 2009, and funded 51 together at the end. We want the puzzle networks in 2015, providing single year to be exposed from the very beginning.” grants, with a budget of US$8 million for scientific collaboration with networks to Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología address strategic areas. Proposals must demonstrate how social & economic impact will be achieved.

”We consider that the network must have Performance monitoring contact with other disciplines in order to address problem solutions.” Research projects are funded for 2, 3 or 4 years and funding recipients must submit an annual progress report to ensure the next A small proportion of projects that come allocation of funding. in under the call for basic research fall into the category of multidisciplinary research, accounting for maybe 10 percent of the total budget of US$38.5 million. Report evaluation ensures that the project is on target to achieve the objectives.

Assessment, evaluation If doubts arise about the annual report, it is & measurement sent to reviewers for further consideration. Review system

CONACYT has a special panel composed of scientists from different fields and with multidisciplinary experience.

20 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Biblio-metrics are not officially used as a tool Lack of information to guide to analyse or evaluate the contributions from appropriate policies the different disciplines that are involved in interdisciplinary projects. Published papers are the main product to evaluate “We are entering new ground in many ways interdisciplinary projects. so we do not have available databases to guide our policies. We have to break new ground and over time there will be more and more information, and it will be easier Careers, training to make comparisons across projects to & recognition compare impact.” Capacity building

CONACYT has not implemented a specific Incentivising interdisciplinary research policy to promote graduate interdisciplinary programmes. Researchers consider publishing in scientific journals as being productive. ”So far, the need for interdisciplinary human capital has not been translated into a policy to Interdisciplinary projects will need new promote graduate programmes of that kind.” journals to lead to publishing.

“On the whole, research institutions are “What we as the funding agency and the not ready to receive students with an policy of the funding agency have to do interdisciplinary profile.” is work very hard with the Mexican scientific community to change that attitude so that they accept interdisciplinary work International as valuable and legitimate research.” collaboration

Mexican scientists & researchers participate in international projects, but few of those Key learnings are of an interdisciplinary nature. • Interdisciplinary research has a key role to play in addressing grand challenges and achieving societal “We would be open to international impact. invitations to do interdisciplinary work, but so far that has not been very frequent.” • Research funding agencies should find ways to encourage research across disciplinary boundaries, including by developing and implementing networks Challenges in establishing between science and industry. the right conditions for • Agencies should seek to develop a more encompassing definition of interdisciplinary research both disciplinary and interdisciplinary research as there is a need for research Defining interdisciplinary research funding agencies to better understand the nuances involved in interdisciplinary research. “We see a lot of interdisciplinary projects that are not really interdisciplinary; in the • Research funding agencies should category of interdisciplinary.” engage with publishers to work together on better recognition of and opportunities for interdisciplinary research. The ability to distinguish between what is and what is not interdisciplinary research is crucial in order to ensure appropriate evaluation.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 21 A move towards interdisciplinary research Background Colciencias is a Colombian government Three ‘grand challenges’ for Colombia agency that supports fundamental and this year are: applied research in Colombia. Colciencias • Peace construction is a public entity that leads, directs and • Green growing coordinates the national policy for Science, • Adding value to natural/ Technology and Innovation in order to non-renewable resources generate and integrate knowledge to help to develop the social, economic, cultural and territorial development of Colombia and improve the welfare of Colombians. Grand challenges must transverse different disciplines Securing funding Research funding is particularly low this year, and a fund of between US$25-30 “The team here at Colciencias are all very million will be made available for Science, convinced that interdisciplinary research Technology and Innovation research. is a condition required for really generating impact of all the national systems of Science, Technology and Innovation, and with traditionally uni-disciplinary research Interdisciplinary Research we could not advance in the way that is necessary.” Colciencias is very engaged with interdisciplinary collaboration and is working hard to promote interdisciplinary research but this approach is not well Moving the funding focus away developed within Colombia. from single disciplines

In previous years, very few calls for proposals have proposed interdisciplinary research – the Funding has traditionally been only given only visible interdisciplinary research conducted to single disciplinary research: funding in in Colombia at this stage is through some of the previous years has been divided between Centers of Excellence for Research. the different disciplines/programmes, e.g. 10% Health, 50% Basic Science. Centers of Excellence for Research are national networks of research groups in Colombia that pursue common problems in a scientific and technological area of national strategic A new approach this year seeks to promote importance. The centers are part of the national more interdisciplinary research through the public policy for the promotion of research allocation of a global budget rather through the creation or strengthening of the than programme-specific budget. national research programs in complex and priority subjects, that require interdisciplinary, and interinstitutional, intersectoral, and Careers, training international collaboration. The centers are funded by Colciencias and the participating & recognition universities and institutions. Publishing IDR

Due to lack of interdisciplinary journals in Colombia, it is difficult to publish the results of interdisciplinary research. Colciencias, Administrative & Innovation Department Technology of Science,

“To put it in one journal, the social contributions will not help with the evaluation of the paper but if you put it in a social sciences journal all the engineering work would be misunderstood.”

22 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report International No formal policy collaboration No formal interdisciplinary policy within There is no real international interdisciplinary Colombia leads not only to no specific research conducted in Colombia at present. funding but a lack of constant or continuous lines of work on interdisciplinary research.

Colciencias is in the very early stages of working with the Ministry of Education in building an ambitious programme for creating “We don’t have specific funding for international partnerships with universities [interdisciplinary research].” that would involve interdisciplinary research.

The national policy document, CONPES (not specific to Science and Technology) Challenges in establishing is currently under discussion, and will have an orientation towards interdisciplinary the right conditions for research and will facilitate interdisciplinary interdisciplinary research research going forward.

Breaking tradition

There is a very traditional research Key learnings community in Colombia that is resistant • Interdisciplinary research is necessary to interdisciplinary working. for development, and in particular for addressing grand challenges. • Interdisciplinary research requires time “It’s not easy because people in research to form appropriate partnerships, and to traditionally are very closed to their own allow for negotiations between alliances. discipline, so we are trying to force the system on that.” • Research funding agencies should be prepared to support interdisciplinary teams, and need to construct clear policies and systems in order to attract Negotiations between disciplines single disciplines to collaborate with others. Negotiations when working with different • Research funding agencies should alliances within the same discipline have actively promote the value and necessity proved problematic. of interdisciplinary research, and help to develop a shift in mind-set towards interdisciplinary research. Negotiating between different disciplines, • Research funding agencies should each with its own methodology, is a difficult engage with publishers to increase and slow process. recognition of and opportunities for interdisciplinary research.

“Usually they work alone in a single way, so making this approach requires many things… different methodologies and products in the different disciplines, and even different timescales, this is a negotiation that our groups are not in the habit of doing.”

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 23 Reason for this approach... Background The National Science Challenges are The Ministry of Business, Innovation and mission-led investments that focus Employment (MBIE) is responsible for on issues of national importance. the government funding into science Each Challenge encourages proposals in New Zealand. from New Zealand’s ‘best team’ and looks for additionality. MBIE oversees a range of different types of government investments, including Researchers in the relevant areas contestable, negotiated and institutional of science were encouraged to form expenditures. collaborations to put forward a joint proposal which needed to demonstrate how, over time, new capability, research, and researchers would be Interdisciplinary Research introduced into the Challenge through The National Science Challenges are part of a contestable process. MBIE’s negotiated expenditures, and a portion of contestable funding has been redeployed to support the Challenges – a funding vehicle for interdisciplinary research. Universities, CRIs and other research providers have formed consortia of the The National Science Challenges have provided best teams to present proposals: funding to New Zealand researchers since 2013 to tackle some of the biggest science-based issues and opportunities facing New Zealand. “We were looking for what we were calling The eleven National Science Challenges a multidisciplinary approach. We wanted were identified through: to specifically incentivise different disciplines to come together to really make • A consultation, involving a TV a step change in the science being done advertisement to engage the public. to address each challenge.”

• A series of workshops run with the science sector. Assessment, evaluation • Analysis and prioritisation by an independent panel chaired by the & measurement Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Review system

The National Science Challenges makes Independent panel assessment (IAP) a fund of some US$820 million available over before going to the Science Board for a 10 year period. Applicants submit a research decision-making. The Ministry of Business, & Employment Innovation (MBIE) and business plan for up to 10 years, as well as a work programme for an initial period of up to five years. Towards the end of the first IAP of international and New Zealand funding period, Challenge collaborations must experts in the relevant areas. submit a further detailed work programme for the next five years. “We actually had to bring in international science experts because seeking the best New Zealand team meant that everyone was conscripted in New Zealand.”

24 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report People chairing the panels tended Challenges in establishing to chair more than one to give continuity across the challenges. the right conditions for interdisciplinary research

The same panel reconvened in cases Changing scientists’ mind set of competition where the proposal came back.

“They’re used to competing with each other. “We wanted them to be the best New They’re not used to putting their ideas on Zealand team, bringing different disciplines a table. Getting the right proposal was into the best New Zealand team, which really hard.” meant that we were actually only looking for one proposal for each of the challenges.” Leadership Performance monitoring “We have struggled in New Zealand to find A framework to measure and monitor eleven leaders. Independent people who performance and to be used by all are focused on the outcome of the challenge Challenges, including common metrics, and not on the institutional funding. The e.g. numbers of publications. leadership is absolutely critical and getting somebody who’s got that science credibility but also can work the relationships.” Ensures the ability to collect consistent information and monitor how the policy is performing. Governance

The framework also allows for each of the “We’re actually devolving the funding to challenges to create their own metrics the challenge for them to make decisions. & KPIs to monitor performance against We’re keen to make sure there are specific goals. independent people on those governance groups rather than representatives of the research organisations who are just going There is an MBIE observer on Challenge to carve up the money amongst themselves.” governance entities.

There is a review of all Challenges after five years to determine funding for the Key learnings next five years. • Top-down structures are important in order to identify priority issues and set the grand challenges that require Careers, training interdisciplinary solutions. • Funding agencies have a key role to play & recognition in facilitating interdisciplinary working MBIE does not currently foster training by developing systems and practices in interdisciplinarity through specific that accommodate interdisciplinarity. programmes, but considers this an issue • Particular effort should be invested in the for funders to think about. development of common as well as project specific metrics to enable performance assessment of interdisciplinary policy.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 25 Background Assessment, evaluation The Australian Research Council (ARC) & measurement is a Commonwealth entity and advises the Identification Australian Government on research matters, administers the National Competitive Grants Up until recently, interdisciplinary research Programme, a significant component of was identified by the combination of non- Australia’s investment in research, and cognate fields of research codes, or codes evaluates the quality of research. that go across major discipline areas. From December 2015, the ARC has asked The ARC’s mission is to deliver policy applicants to identify if the research is and programmes that advance Australian interdisciplinary, to understand the scope research and innovation globally and of interdisciplinary research and to better benefit the community. inform its policy.

The ARC is investigating how to assess Interdisciplinary Research interdisciplinary research differently The ARC funds interdisciplinary research in the future, using a “more nuanced across the range of its funding programmes. understanding of interdisciplinary.” The ARC is currently developing a policy on interdisciplinary research and looking at ways to better identify and assess it. The ARC has not defined interdisciplinary

Australian Research Council (ARC) research but has identified that The ARC’s support for interdisciplinary interdisciplinary research may include: research ranges from pure research 1. Researchers from different disciplines through to applied research. working together in a team.

2. Researchers collaborating to bring “The ARC supports a range of different perspectives to solve a problem. interdisciplinary activity, ranging from an individual researcher using a 3. A researcher or researchers utilising methodology from outside their discipline methods normally associated with one area to different disciplines working discipline to solve the problems of together to solve a complex problem.” another 4. Researchers developing innovative cross-disciplinary methodologies to The ARC is currently developing a formal address a research problem. policy around interdisciplinary research.

Assessment “We are developing a new policy and a new framework around interdisciplinary The ARC is currently considering the best research, looking at ways of better tracking way it can assess interdisciplinary proposals interdisciplinary activity, and enhancing in the future. This might include assessors ways of assessing and supporting it.” with a background in interdisciplinary research or assessors from a mix of relevant disciplines. The ARC will also consider how to provide guidance to assessors to assist in assessing interdisciplinary proposals.

“The ARC believes that any methodology to assess interdisciplinary research must result in the best quality research being funded.”

26 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report A possible assessment model Challenges in establishing An interdisciplinary application will be the right conditions for assigned to at least one member of the ARC College of Experts who has “the right interdisciplinary research interdisciplinary mix for the application.” Identifying interdisciplinary research

The application is then assigned to at least one external peer reviewer who has “The key challenge has been to work out interdisciplinary expertise or capability in the best way of identifying [interdisciplinary the appropriate fields of research. research] and then assessing it.”

“We need to be able to look at the way Applications are assessed by the selection research is clustering around particular panel taking into account all peer reviews, interdisciplinary themes, and then to work along with all other applications across all out if our programmes and policies are disciplines in that round. supporting those”

Evaluation

A final report from each funded project will identify the outcomes of the research. Key learnings • Interdisciplinary research has a key role to play in achieving societal impact. Careers, training • Relevant processes, including peer review and research quality and impact & recognition assessments need to allow for consideration and recognition of the nature of, and issues The ARC does not fund specific training in involved in, research across disciplinary interdisciplinary research. boundaries. • Interdisciplinary research is evolving and there is a need for research funding Any training that does take place is within agencies to better understand the nuances existing programmes, such as the ARC’s involved in interdisciplinary research. Centres of Excellence programs, where early career researchers are funded to • A definition of interdisciplinary research work with senior researchers. needs to be clearly articulated.

International collaboration

The ARC supports international collaboration through all its programmes, with researchers selecting the best team to support the research.

“The ARC’s programmes have enabled significant international collaboration in the absence of specific bilateral agreements.”

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 27 Background IDR is embedded in the programmes and driven by the issue itself; a call for The Department of Science & Technology proposals is issued and an interdisciplinary (DST) was established in India in May 1971, team may be required. with the objective of promoting new areas of Science & Technology and to organise, coordinate and promote S&T activities in “If you look for example in the programme the country. The DST is responsible for in cognitive sciences, there’s a high creating and implementing India’s science interdisciplinary angle…some areas require and technology policies as well as taking input from social sciences or medical funding decisions. science and physical chemical sciences The DST also supports approximately coming together, or engineering and 25 institutes of science and industry technology coming together.” across India. Assessment, evaluation Interdisciplinary Research & measurement Review system While the DST has no formal interdisciplinary policy, interdisciplinary research has a key There is a core committee with a pool of role in achieving societal impact. Research other scientists. into priority areas should be problem- centric, not discipline-centric. Committees are established in areas that lend themselves better to IDR, such as ”The best way to encourage interdisciplinary material science and nanotechnology, research is to define problems which renewable energy, water etc. are significant, important and need to be solved, but that cannot be solved by a single discipline. If you encourage A core committee exists, with a pool of this kind of problem solving, and you another 20 scientists that can be called encourage sufficient funding for this on depending on the type of proposal The (DST) Department of Science & Technology activity, then I suspect such teams would to evaluate. form spontaneously.”

Priority areas are generally society- Careers, training centric and cannot be solved from & recognition a single discipline. Capacity building

“Problems are not defined by terms of There is no formal training programme isolated traditional domains of knowledge, for IDR. they are defined by objectives and to reach those objectives you need a whole lot of different tools.” Researchers assemble their own team to respond to a call that requires an IDR approach.

Younger researchers are more open to working with other disciplines.

28 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Publishing IDR Challenges in establishing

It is important to publicise the impact of the right conditions for IDR in order to increase recognition of the value of IDR. interdisciplinary research

Breaking tradition An increasing number of interdisciplinary journals over the past few years has improved the situation. “Ten years ago we had everything neatly bundled up, organic, organic physical and so on, so it’s a little bit new and people The average number of authors on are still getting used to doing things more a publication from different departments effectively in an ID way!” has been increasing.

Finding the right experts to evaluate International an IDR proposal collaboration Managing the views of experts from International interdisciplinarity is different disciplines well-established for global issues. “If you have four different experts, they Several centres of international cooperation each evaluate a certain part of the proposal exist with many examples of international but together that’s a challenging task.” IDR research, such as clean energy.

International cooperation can be virtual teams, or simply individuals working Key learnings together from different disciplines. • Interdisciplinary research plays a key role in addressing grand challenges and achieving societal impact. • Promoting interdisciplinarity requires a shift in cultural mindsets, and it is important that sufficient funding support is provided in order to shift mindsets. • IDR is often international in nature, in particular with regard to global challenges. • Recognition of IDR through increased publication is important.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 29 Assessment, evaluation Background & measurement JSPS is one of the leading funding agencies Application process in Japan, providing funding for Japanese researchers and foreign researchers in Japan, Revised in 2013 with the introduction of for both basic and applied research. Integrated Disciplines covering research JSPS was established by way of a national areas such as Complex systems and law for the purpose of contributing to the Environmental Science. advancement of science in all fields of the natural and social sciences and the humanities. The areas cover interdisciplinary research fields which were difficult to categorise into traditional research areas, but now enable researchers conducting emerging Interdisciplinary Research and interdisciplinary research to apply The main fund for Japanese researchers is to KAKENHI. called Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, or KAKENHI: Review system • It is the largest competitive funding JSPS introduced a two-step review system program in Japan. under Grants-in-Aid, consisting of both the • It accounts for more than 55% of all paper and panel review. competitive funding by government.

• It consists of a series of single-year grants Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on • It was reformed in 2011 by adding a multi- Innovative Areas and some other research year fund to allow the flexible use of grants categories that promote interdisciplinary across fiscal years. research have adopted the more advanced review system in which both processes of • It covers all fields from the humanities to the paper and panel review involve the same panel social sciences and natural sciences. members (Comprehensive Review System). • It is aimed at creative, pioneering scientific research from basic to applied fields. • It offers support for interdisciplinary research This enables reviewers to familiarise themselves with the complexities of Japan Society for the of Science (JSPS) Promotion through providing a bottom-up scheme in which research is carried out based on the interdisciplinary research. researcher’s own creative ideas. Evaluation

JSPS are grappling with ways to correctly evaluate interdisciplinary research.

Under KAKENHI, JSPS has some special programmes that promote interdisciplinary research:

Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Grant-in-Aid for Specific Innovative Areas Exploratory Research Research (B/C)*

Date launched 2008 2011 2014

Focus New research areas proposed by a group Early-stage research Based on the newest of researchers in diverse disciplines, which conducted by one or multiple scientific trends, a through efforts of collective research, researchers which, based on Generative Research Field scholarly training, shared use of equipment, a unique idea, sets a high & is established for Scientific etc., will develop and lead to the enhancement challenging goal. Research (B) and (C). of scientific research in Japan.

Funding period 5 years 1 – 3 years 3– 5 years (depending on the year of application)

Budget Around US$90,000 to US$2.7 million Up to US$45,000 per project. Scientific Research (B): per fiscal year & field. Around US$45,000 to US$180,000 per project. Scientific Research (C): Up to US$45,000 per project.

Success rate (2015) 16% 23.6% 14.3%

30 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Careers, training Difficult to find qualified reviewers & recognition for interdisciplinary research

JSPS provides support for the advancement The Comprehensive Review System will be of all fields of science and humanities introduced into broader research categories. including interdisciplinary research areas by Changes to the review system will bring carrying out a vast array of programs as well reviewers interdisciplinary perspectives. as conducting fair and rigorous peer review and thus facilitates the career development of researchers. Key learnings Capacity building in Japan is • A review of the specialization/discipline- encouraged through the World Premier based categorization of funding schemes International Research Center Initiative is necessary to encourage applications (WPI), which was launched in 2007 by from interdisciplinary researchers. the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) • Continuous training and capacity in a drive to build within Japan globally building to ensure panel members are visible research centers. appropriately equipped to reviewing proposals for funding and evaluating the impact of interdisciplinary research. These centers are given a high degree Consistency of panel members across of autonomy, allowing them to virtually multiple stages of review aids in gradual revolutionize conventional modes of familiarisation with interdisciplinarity. research operation and administration in Japan, with universities focussing on fusion/interdisciplinary research.

Challenges in establishing the right conditions for interdisciplinary research

From 2017 JSPS will set a new framework promoting large scale research projects under Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Exploratory Research.

It will promote and expand support toward interdisciplinary research.

Highly fragmented research fields (more than 300 fields for application under the fund).

From 2018 and due to the reform of the KAKENHI Screening System the introduction of broader research fields would enable JSPS to accept a wider variety of applications, and encourage interdisciplinary researchers to apply.

*Grant-in-Aid for Specific Research funds creative/pioneering research conducted by one researcher or jointly by multiple researchers, which is classified into types A, B, and C on the basis of the total budget. Based on the newest scientific trends, a Generative Research Field is established for Scientific Research (B) and (C).

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 31 Background Interfacing with other Research Councils The Medical Research Council seeks to The MRC works with other councils to improve human health through world-class identify common priorities and grand medical research, and funds research across challenges that are of common interest, to the biomedical spectrum, from fundamental facilitate working in an interdisciplinary way. lab-based science to clinical trials, and in all major disease areas. The MRC is a non- departmental public body funded through “Experience in the past has shown that the government’s science and research budget. interdisciplinary research can fare less The MRC awards funding in both responsive well through responsive mode. That is mode and managed mode. In 2014/15, 336 why we invest in cross-council programmes awards were made, leading to the commitment to mitigate this.” of US$345 million for new research.

An example of interdisciplinary cross-council research is for an activity on Anti-microbial Interdisciplinary Research resistance (AMR) which was led by MRC in partnership with BBSRC, ESRC and EPSRC The MRC does not have specific written down and focused on “Accelerating therapeutic policies in respect of funding interdisciplinary and diagnostics development” in which research, but has “ways of working” which two types of award were available: encourage it.

Medical Research Council (MRC) • Collaborative grants – large scale (around US$4.25 million per project, 4–5 years “In terms of specific hard and fast policies we duration) support for multidisciplinary teams don’t really have any, but we have agreements to build capacity and capability and provide across the Research Councils, we have a flexibility to address major questions. cross-council concordat where we work • Innovation grants – smaller scale collaboratively to help each other support (US$280k, 1–2 years duration) interdisciplinary research.” Assessment, evaluation The MRC has multiple schemes under which research in general is funded. Some & measurement schemes are understood to Cross-council review system – facilitate interdisciplinary research collaborative grants more so than others. 1. Call preparation and launch – involves discussion with partner Research Councils to define scope Programme grants – are mostly and remit of the call, assessment process and interdisciplinary, longer term and provide criteria, as well as discussion of how much each much more flexible funding. They are generally partner will contribute to the funding pot. around a coordinated group of related 2. Build expert panel –includes nominations from research projects that address related all Research Councils and discussions about the appropriate balance of expertise. research questions across a broad area of study. 3. Outline proposals received and checked internally for eligibility. “The funding isn’t specifically directed at 4. Outlines assessed by expert panel and shortlisted against assessment criteria. particular activities. The PI and project team can allocate the budget quite flexibly and 5. Successful outlines invited to submit full proposals. it allows for much more interdisciplinarity.” 6. Full proposals received and checked, and sent to external peer reviewers for comment – all partner Research Councils have sight of the Confidence in Concept scheme – proposals and suggest reviewers if appropriate. provides annual awards of US$350k– Once received, the peer reviews are sent to US$1.7 million to institutions, to be used flexibly the applicants for response. to support the earliest stages of multiple 7. Full proposals assessed by expert panel translational research projects, where and recommendations for funding agreed. interdisciplinarity is essential for success. 8. AMR steering committee approve the final funding decision and awards are made.

32 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Cross-council review system – innovative grants Challenges in establishing the right conditions for Similar process to the one employed for collaborative grants, except that there was interdisciplinary research no outline stage – only full proposals were received, and there was no external peer Peer review review stage, the awards went straight to the expert panel and were assessed there. “The peer review process tends to be quite risk averse and if a reviewer feels that they “In those situations it would be difficult to can comment on their discipline, but not the get three peer reviews that are going to rest of the project, they might be too critical cross all of the disciplines involved, so you of their particular area because they are might need to take a different approach looking at it in isolation.” where the assessment is more focused on the panel meeting than the review.” Discipline based faculty system Evaluation “University departments are often very The MRC prospectively tracks research siloed and don’t always facilitate the cross progress and captures and assesses research disciplinary interactions we are trying achievements through the uptake of to encourage with cross disciplinary Researchfish, an online database that allows programmes, though this is changing.” researchers to provide feedback on the outputs and impacts of their research. Articulating the research challenge

“Interdisciplinary research is assessed in the same way that any other project is assessed.” “The biggest cross-council challenge comes in articulating the research challenge in such a way that it is meaningful to all communities. Careers, training If a call uses MRC “language”, it is likely to attract more medical researchers than other & recognition disciplines. It has an impact on who applies Publishing IDR and in what context.”

Career progression of researchers working on IDR projects might be slowed because they are not publishing in the high impact Key learnings journals for their respective disciplines. • Effective interdisciplinary research can require longer timeframes for the formation of teams “Publishing can be a barrier because journals and require a more flexible funding approach. are very discipline based and to get good • Top-down structures are important to identify citations you need to be publishing in priority issues and set the challenges that your discipline’s top journals. If you’re require interdisciplinary solutions. publishing in interdisciplinary journals or • Research funding agencies should find ways a journal that is outside your own personal to encourage research across disciplinary discipline, you’re not going to get the boundaries, including by coordinating same recognition.” schemes between multiple councils across the full research spectrum. International • Relevant processes, including peer review need to allow for consideration of the nature collaboration of research across disciplinary boundaries. • Interdisciplinary researchers, particularly those There are a number of international in their early career stage, should not be activities that MRC are involved in. disadvantaged by rigid departmental and publication structures.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 33 As experts in their respective scientific fields, Background DFG program directors and officers cooperate with colleagues from different fields on The DFG is the largest independent review questions, coordinating 48 scientific research funding organisation in Germany. committees. Members of the scientific boards It promotes the advancement of science are nominated by different scientific societies and the humanities by funding research and elected by the scientific communities. projects, research centres and networks, Scientific boards therefore consist of scientists and facilitating cooperation among from different disciplines. researchers.

Because special emphasis is placed on the disciplines themselves, DFG looks Interdisciplinary Research at questions of interdisciplinarity from The DFG supports projects from all areas a more systematic point of view. of science and the humanities and especially promotes interdisciplinary cooperation among researchers. However, from DFG’s Approval rate perspective, interdisciplinary research is not an end in itself, but rather the outcome There is slight, but not stable evidence of bottom-up processes driven by scientific that proposals for interdisciplinary projects demand. Rather than juxtaposing disciplinary with distant disciplines being involved face and interdisciplinary research, therefore, a higher risk of being rejected than those DFG provides for a wide range of programs where disciplines are close. within its funding portfolio that also entail specific instruments designed to support Performance monitoring interdisciplinary cooperation.

DFG’s Coordinated Programs (e.g. Priority Referees assess the outcome of any given

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Forschungsgemeinschaft Deutsche Programs, Collaborative Research Centers, research project, whether disciplinary or International Research Training Groups, etc.) interdisciplinary, on the research objectives. provide a framework for interdisciplinary research, but the format/funding instrument very much depends on the way disciplines “Which challenges have been addressed in work and what they need. their proposal and have they been reached? Each project is treated on a unique basis.” Collaborative programmes account for approximately 40 percent of DFG’s total funding budget of US$3.1 billion. Every three years, DFG publishes the DFG Funding Atlas, a report with key figures relating to publicly funded research in Germany. The key figures presented in Assessment, evaluation this report focus on disciplines and their contribution to sharpening the profile of & measurement higher education institutions. Review system

The peer review system is carefully “Which mix of disciplines is characteristic checked and balanced by experts from for a particular university or higher all academic fields. education institution? Which disciplines collaborate in projects funded within the DFG’s coordinated programmes, and The structure of the DFG’s Scientific Affairs which interdisciplinarities are characteristic Department is based on disciplines. for them?”

34 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Careers, training Challenges in establishing & recognition the right conditions for

DFG-funded Graduate Schools (within the interdisciplinary research German Excellence Initiative) and Research Training Groups specifically aim for people Researchers need to be disciplinary experts to look beyond disciplinary borders. in order to become interesting partners in interdisciplinary projects.

This presupposes the existence of a sound disciplinary base and disciplinary skills which The quality of disciplinary, academic students should acquire during their studies. training, is increasingly called into question by the rising number of interdisciplinary courses of study, which might seem relevant Graduate schools should encompass people to the job market, but are less important from various disciplines, but with basic for the scientific enterprise as such. expertise in interdisciplinary cooperation.

Funders should not specifically provide Key learnings support for non-research skills, but facilitate interdisciplinary working by providing • Relevant processes, including peer incentives for workshops and seminars review and research quality and across disciplinary borders. impact assessments need to allow for consideration of the nature of research across disciplinary boundaries. The Center for Science Management • Interdisciplinary research builds on in Speyer (Zentrum für disciplinary expertise and skills, and Wissenschaftsmanagement) was founded thus disciplinary research needs to be by DFG to provide research administrators visible and research training should and managers with communication first and foremost focus on disciplinary management & coordination skills. research skills. • Funders should facilitate interdisciplinary working by providing incentives for International workshops and seminars across collaboration disciplinary borders.

Approximately 20% of participating researchers in projects funded within the DFG’s Coordinated Programs scheme are from outside of Germany.

International collaboration is not a necessary condition for interdisciplinary research.

Interdisciplinary and international cooperation do not necessarily depend on funding or on the cooperation of funders.

Researchers cooperate internationally because the expertise necessary to carry out a project is based outside of their home country.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 35 Assessment, evaluation Background & measurement The mission of the European Research Council (ERC) is to encourage the highest Review system quality research in Europe, and in particular Researchers may indicate that a proposal to support investigator-driven ‘frontier’ is appropriate for a cross-panel review, or research across all fields of science, a panel may decide that a proposal should scholarship and engineering. be reviewed by more than one panel.

Review is conducted through high Interdisciplinary Research quality peer reviews, the establishment of international benchmarks of success, The ERC has specific policies and and the provision of up-to-date information practices in place for interdisciplinary on who is succeeding and why. research that have evolved over time and that keep evolving. 25 review panels exist with each covering one research field and another field in There is a history of PI-centric funding neighbouring or related disciplines. within core programmes, but with opportunities for established researchers to undertake small scale collaborations. Review panels with a broad scope are intended to mitigate risk of not encouraging IDR. The ERC is aware that IDR needed specific The European Research Council (ERC) attention within this setting. Cross-panel reviews exist where members of different panels evaluate proposals. A task force within ERC is currently looking into the policies and practices around IDR, and to establish methods of accommodating ERC grants are awarded through open interdisciplinary proposals into the current competition, and the sole criterion for funding schemes, including the possibility selection is scientific excellence. of setting up a dedicated funding scheme for IDR. Evaluation & measurement

Difficult to measure interdisciplinarity within Interdisciplinary research should not a funding portfolio of a given agency. be seen as an end in itself; excellent research should be funded whether it is interdisciplinary or not. Metrics and definition need further development.

ERC reward innovative proposals by placing emphasis on the quality of the In general, the achievements and impacts idea rather than the research area. of IDR projects should not be evaluated differently from mono-disciplinary projects.

“The danger of the funding community is to start to treat IDR as an end in itself, One key difference is that experience it still has to pass the excellence criteria and achievements of researchers working as would any mono-disciplinary projects.” on interdisciplinary projects should be formally recorded.

36 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Challenges in establishing the right conditions for Key learnings • Disciplinary excellence is necessary interdisciplinary research for all research, whether interdisciplinary or uni-disciplinary. Allocating budget • Interdisciplinary research often carries an inherently higher level of risk and requires longer timeframes. Budget is allocated at the level of three domains: • Research funding agencies should encourage interdisciplinary research • Social Science & Humanities, by developing and implementing • Life Sciences, systems, practices and mechanisms • Physical Sciences & Engineering that recognise and accommodate interdisciplinarity. In the past, a percentage of the budget • Funding agencies should actively work has been set aside for projects that do not towards improving awareness of the neatly fit into the remit of a single panel. success and value of interdisciplinary research amongst policy holders and researchers. Setting aside budget is deemed an • Funding agencies should work to unsuccessful policy due to the complexities encourage researchers, especially involved over which domain should those in their early career stages, to fund proposals. conduct interdisciplinary research.

Encouraging IDR despite high risk, low success

The success rates of projects which span across panels have been relatively low.

Ground-breaking interdisciplinary research, where two or more fields who do not normally work together collaborate, can be deemed too risky and lengthy by researchers.

Younger researchers are generally discouraged from undertaking high risk research at an early stage in their careers.

It is important to share success stories of interdisciplinary research as encouragement.

Setting appropriate timescales

Ground-breaking research takes more than the usual research cycle of two years.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 37 2. Competitive Research Grant (CRG) Background The Office of Sponsored Research (OSR) Grants are in the order of US$0.5 million supports research at King Abdullah University per year for three years; the success rate is of Science & Technology (KAUST) and consists controlled by the OSR at normally around of three units dedicated to this task: 40 percent. • Research Services works with KAUST researchers to develop research projects internally or with best-in-class global 3. Research Partnership Grant collaborators. • Competitive Research Funds employs A fund that facilitates collaboration between a global peer review process to discern preeminent international scientists and the most meritorious and strategic KAUST scientists, enabling KAUST scientists ideas, and warrant investment of access to a particular facility or expertise. KAUST resources. • Research Evaluation focuses on impact, 4. Ad-hoc Interdisciplinary Special evaluating outcomes of basic and goal- Initiative/ Research (not formalised) driven research, assessing how these should guide future actions. The university is funded from proceeds Identification of a specific research topic, of an endowment established by King fund at appropriate levels facilitating five Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. A specific end to end, cross-discipline initiatives fraction of the endowment is dedicated focussing on ‘sensing’. to support research.

“Given existing expertise at KAUST, we wanted to address sensing in the broad sense and we think there is science to be Interdisciplinary Research had in integrating the various disciplines in that end to end way.” The OSR has four funding programs which are non-disciplinary by design. Interdisciplinary research is considered Facilitating Interdisciplinary Collaboration as “part of the fabric, or the genes of the university, by design”. Facilitators skilled in inducing conversation and a coalescence on ideas are involved in the initial stages of team forming. “We don’t even try to encourage interdisciplinarity because that’s what we are already.” “Once the conversation has headed into some kind of coalescence, then the facilitators step out and the emergent The four funding programmes are as follows: leader in the group takes over.”

1. Centre Competitive Funding Assessment, evaluation Funds 11 mainly goal orientated research centres, clearly interdisciplinary, & measurement multidisciplinary, international programmes. Review system

The review system involves an ad-hoc and Centre goals can be directed towards a panel review. economic development and societal benefits such as the center for Water Desalination & Reuse and the Solar Interdisciplinary proposals are sent to people Photovoltaic Engineering Research Centre. that have some of the expertise, but also reviewers with a cross-cutting background. The Office at King of Sponsored Abdullah Research (OSR) University (KAUST) of Science & Technology

38 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report The panel is constructed from 10 to International 20 people, depending on the proposals submitted. collaboration Every program is by design international. “So the interdisciplinary panel can take a look at the interdisciplinary proposal without any prejudice.” Challenges in establishing the right conditions for “We look at who the main experts are, interdisciplinary research the most impactful people in the range of fields that we have and from there we Ensuring interdisciplinary working evolves start inviting people.”

The annual evaluation of research centres Once a panel is established, about half the shows that researchers can isolate into panel is retained for the next competition. their own disciplines.

“The reason for trying to keep people is just “You want them to know that if the intent to keep benchmarking us.” of funding is to promote interdisciplinary work, then we are going to hold them accountable to doing interdisciplinary work.” Evaluation

Part of the evaluation is the quality stature of the external collaborators. Key learnings “If they collaborated with relatively weak • Top-down structures are important in collaborators they may not get the funding.” order to identify priority issues and set the grand challenges that require interdisciplinary solutions. Research Performance monitoring funding agencies should be actively involved in the solicitation, identification A science advisory board helps evaluate the and articulation of challenges as success of interdisciplinary collaborations well as the provision of funding for and research centres. interdisciplinary research. • The value of research infrastructures “They’re going to evaluate how they work, such as research centres in facilitating the publications, the impact and all that, interdisciplinary research should be but one of the charges is how well are these recognised and funding considered. people working together.” • Support for training in leadership, communication, management skills and the science of team science should be The science advisory board provides offered to increase capacity and capability a report of their findings, which is in interdisciplinary research; facilitation presented to the centre PIs and the of discussions during the team formation university leadership. process is to be encouraged.

The university leadership decides on whether certain structural changes in the centres are required.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 39 No formal interdisciplinary research Background policy exists and consequently there are no funds that go specifically to interdisciplinarity. TAASTI is a think tank that tries to review and facilitate the emergence of new policies that deal with science, technology and “We are wasting capacity, by not being innovation. Indeed, the main mission is to aware of the importance of science, be the watchdog of the government as to technology and innovation in today’s policies related to science, technology and transformation and transition.” innovation in general, working towards the emergence of a functional, dynamic and viable national innovation system.

TAASTI’s specific objectives are to: Identify research capacity • Contribute to the development of appropriate policies, especially horizontal The creation of research infrastructures ones, through a participatory approach, such as laboratories and national research while ensuring adequate monitoring centres is important to identify research and evaluation. capacity both in terms of numbers • Promote the performance of our and specialities. universities to improve the employability of their graduates and the contribution of their research output and innovation Enhances the government’s ability to inject to socio-economic development, money and fund research. particularly in their regional context.

• Participate in the establishment of an industrial and services system based on Research maturity green high value-added technologies and develop the information technology and communication infrastructure. “Interdisciplinary theory requires maturity in research, experience in research and skills to do research in a group with people from different areas.” Challenges in establishing the right conditions for interdisciplinary research Disconnect between industry & academia

Identification of research priorities “Our industry is not up to speed regarding the value added in their products, to actually see the high level scientific and The Ministry of Higher Education and technical knowhow of academia. The Scientific Research has not identified industry is disconnected from the services national challenges in an effort to and the contribution of academics to their leverage research capacities. business and to their production line or to their product.” No research project has been intentionally launched to tackle interdisciplinary issues of relevance to Tunisia and the region.

“If we want to really have interdisciplinarity and tackle socio-economic problems it’s up to the government to use the funding institution as an instrument to activate these problems, to identify these grand challenges, and of course make and put together the necessary processes and Tunisian Association for the Advancement of Science, Technology & Innovation (TAASTI) (TAASTI) & Innovation Association Technology for theTunisian Advancement of Science, funding to actually initiate this project.”

40 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Careers, training Key learnings & recognition • Agencies should find ways to encourage Capacity Building research across disciplinary boundaries, including by developing and implementing TAASTI runs condensed short courses for networks between science and industry. individuals working in public administration, • Provide continuous training and capacity providing training in public policy making. building for government institutions around developing research policy to create the relevant environment within “That to me is already a big contribution which interdisciplinary research can from my association to really upgrade be established. the thinking and the mastery of these • The international nature of interdisciplinary issues by the people who are actually research, particularly in relation to global the execution apparatus.” challenges, is often the only opportunity for researchers in developing countries to expose themselves to interdisciplinary TAASTI has facilitated the launch of research. a Masters Program in Engineering and Technology Policy at ENIT. • Top-down structures are important in order to identify priority issues and set the grand challenges that require interdisciplinary solutions. Agencies To address the lack of expertise and should be actively involved in lobbying programs for Science, Technology and the relevant agencies to articulate Innovation policy research and related and prioritise challenges and channel capacity building programs across Africa. funding accordingly. • Disciplinary excellence is necessary International for interdisciplinary research. collaboration

Tunisian researchers have been heavily involved in projects funded by research programs such as H2020, a substantial part of which are interdisciplinary.

International cooperation, mainly with Europe, has compensated for the absence of a relevant policy on the national level.

Researchers are connected to the international research community and seek participation in projects of relevance to their career progression.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 41 NPRP ‘exceptional proposals’: Background bottom-up approach Qatar Foundation established Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF) in 2006 High impact, high risk research as part of its ongoing commitment to programmes. establish Qatar as a knowledge-based economy. Qatar National Research Fund aims to foster original, competitively Almost all are interdisciplinary in nature – selected research in engineering and allows problem to be researched into from technology, physical and life sciences, all angles. medicine, humanities, social sciences and the arts. Budget of up to US$5million for up to five years. The mission of Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF) is: Single discipline projects can develop “QNRF advances knowledge and education into exceptional interdisciplinary projects by providing funding opportunities for when it becomes clear the project can have original competitively selected research an impact from a different angle – these and development at all levels and across all can develop into breakthrough research disciplines with emphasis on the four pillars programmes. of the Qatar National Research Strategy:

• Energy and Environment • Computer Sciences and ICT Thematic and Grand changes Research Qatar National Research (QNRF) Fund • Health and Life Sciences Program (TGRP): top-down approach • Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities” Recent development: top-down applications where research topic is defined, e.g. Interdisciplinary Research Personalized medicine, where QNRF has launched a number of calls jointly funded with stakeholders such as ‘Path towards Qatar National Research strategy – specifies research topics, many of Personalized Medicine’. which can only be addressed through IDR programmes. Assessment, evaluation Interdisciplinarity is not a pre-requisite of & measurement a research proposal – evaluation criteria is Review system based on impact, and by their nature, some topics are better addressed through IDR. Flexible approach where PI defines team

National Purity Research Program Onus is on applicant to establish a (NPRP) established in 2007 is a collaboration and specify collaborators bottom-up, investigator-driven program. in the application.

Encourages IDR from beginning and Team is evaluated and panel will look into incentivise projects that allow collaboration. how this collaboration could contribute to the research topic.

Allows international applicants to apply in collaboration with local researchers Investigative-driven research (bottom-up) inside Qatar. is more difficult to review due to being open-ended in nature, therefore this approach relies heavily on peer reviewers. “The National Research agenda encourages interdisciplinarity in the selection of the topic itself.”

42 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report The two-tier evaluation process starts with Challenges in establishing a peer review, followed by programmatic evaluation done by a panel that includes the the right conditions for involvement of relevant stakeholders that interdisciplinary research will mainly assess the impact of the project and it’s alignment to QNRS, comparing all the proposals submitted within a given Identifying appropriate peer reviewers science area. Difficult to identify peer reviewers with appropriate primary research interest NPRP ‘exceptional proposals’: and who also have a background in the bottom-up approach relevant secondary area.

2 stage submission: Initial research proposal Particularly a challenge in social science, is submitted to a sub-committee of the behavioural studies or applied research. exceptional proposal panel where the initial proposal is presented before being given the go-ahead to submit the full proposal to the full panel. Key learnings • Grand challenges are established A two-tier evaluation of peer review is through a top-down approach and the followed by programmatic evaluation. majority of grand challenges require an interdisciplinary approach.

The panel review evaluates the impact • Interdisciplinary approaches should of the research based on the merits that be at the heart of research strategy have been submitted by peer reviewers, from the outset, but research proposals in addition to assessing the impact of should continue to be evaluated based the project and its relevance to QNRS. on impact not on interdisciplinarity. • Review process should be adapted to the nature of the research to allow Thematic and Grand changes Research consideration and recognition of the Program (TGRP): top-down approach different issues involved in research which crosses disciplinary boundaries. • International nature of IDR is key, Easier to assess than the bottom-up particularly for global challenges. approach; it is a two-tier evaluation process involving first peer reviewing followed by programmatic (panel) evaluation which will include the participation of the steering committee.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 43 Appendix 1: background & methodology

Background Furthermore, the functions of this report are: At the 2015 GRC Annual Meeting in Tokyo • To serve as a discussion paper for the participants endorsed a ‘Statement of Principles GRC Annual Meeting for Funding Research Breakthroughs’ which, among other recommendations, stated that: • To create a useful baseline of policies and practices of GRC participants in the “Through their funding programs, GRC participants topic area should … ensure support for research in diverse disciplines and foster interdisciplinary or cross- • To be published with the proposed disciplinary exchanges to stimulate exploratory ‘Interdisciplinarity’ Position Statement approaches.” following the 2016 GRC Annual Meeting The GRC recognises the need to better Methodology understand the levels of interdisciplinarity in the existing research base, and also to ensure DJS Research used desk research and qualitative that interdisciplinary research projects are treated research methodologies in a two-pronged fairly and consistently. Indeed, the GRC provides approach to assess policies and good working a unique forum for funders across the world practices employed by funding agencies to discuss how best to support and facilitate in facilitating interdisciplinary research. interdisciplinary research. Desk Research This report, published by DJS Research and commissioned by Research Councils UK (RCUK) DJS Research conducted an extensive piece and the Indian Science and Engineering Research of desk research to assess the plethora of Board (SERB), co-hosts of the GRC 2016 Annual literature available on interdisciplinary research. Meeting in Delhi, seeks to provide the basis for Specifically, the desk research seeks to summarize further discussion on the topic of interdisciplinarity. the findings of diverse pieces of research, case studies, whitepapers and government policies that address funding agencies’ roles, responsibilities Objectives and limitations in the promotion of interdisciplinary The key objective of this report is to establish research. policies and good working practices employed by funding agencies across all five GRC regions: The analysis of published data on the subject Africa, Americas, Asia-Pacific, Middle East/ of interdisciplinarity sets the background to the North Africa (MENA) and Europe – that ensure findings ascertained in the second methodology interdisciplinary research is supported, employed by DJS Research. facilitated and treated fairly and consistently. In particular, viewpoints were sought from participating agencies in the following three sections: • Establishing the right conditions for interdisciplinary working • Assessment, evaluation and measurement of interdisciplinary research (proposal and publication) • Careers, training & recognition

44 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report Depth Interviews Defining interdisciplinary research Depth interviews were conducted with key There is an extensive theology around the decision makers and influencers at GRC members differences between inter-, trans-, multi- and across the GRC regions to provide case studies post-disciplinary research, each with its own of how policies and good working practices shade of meaning. For the purposes of discussing have been implemented and adapted to ensure policy, and indeed for the purposes of this report, interdisciplinary research is facilitated accordingly. DJS Research adopted the term ‘interdisciplinary research’ to describe research where two or more While it was recognised that many funding disciplines work together. agencies may not have specific policies or schemes for supporting interdisciplinarity, the good working Participants in the depth-interviews were practices embedded throughout their funding informed of this definition of interdisciplinary policies provided stimulus for the depth interviews. research prior to embarking on discussions regarding their involvement in funding and Awareness of the DJS Research project on facilitation of interdisciplinary research. behalf of RCUK and SERB was raised using a brief video clip, which was shown at the regional GRC meetings held between October 2015 and January 2016. The video clip called for GRC members to participate in the project on interdisciplinary research. Moreover, potential participants were approached and encouraged to participate by RCUK representatives attending each regional meeting. DJS Research used their dedicated in-house recruitment team for setting up interviews with GRC members who had volunteered to participate. At the recruitment stage, participants were clearly informed about the aims and objectives of the research and why their feedback was considered valuable. To help demonstrate the fact that they would be participating in a bone fide research project, participants were also emailed a letter on RCUK’s letter head to confirm the commissioning of DJS Research by RCUK and SERB. An agreed topic guide was used to steer the discussions, although flexibility was retained to probe in new and unexpected areas. The in-depth interviews were carried out by three members of the project team, all highly experienced qualitative interviewers with specific experience of interviewing senior Government officials and decision makers in Higher Education. Interviews were carried out in English and at the respondent’s convenience and lasted, on average, around an hour, although in many instances interviews were longer. All interviews (with the appropriate permissions) were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis. The telephone depth interviews were conducted between October 2015 and April 2016.

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 45 Appendix 2: references i The Royal Society (2015) Response to the British x Ibid. (Translation from: Gerade bei den hochgradig Academy’s call for evidence on ‘Interdisciplinarity’ interdisziplinären Projekten sollte daher grundsätzlich [online]. available: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/ eine Verlängerung der initialen Projektlaufzeit auf policy/Publications/2015/29-06-15-rs-response-to- 5 Jahre installiert werden.)

ba-inquiry-interdisciplinarity.pdf xi  [accessed 22 February 2016] Lyall, C. et al. (2011) Identifying key success factors in the quest for interdisciplinary knowledge [online] ii European Commission (2007) Project reference: xii Lyall, C. et al. (2013) The role of funding agencies 506013; Changing knowledge and disciplinary in creating interdisciplinary knowledge [online]. boundaries through integrative research methods University of Edinburgh in the social sciences and humanities [online], available: http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/ xiii Bammer, G. (2012) Strengthening Interdisciplinary 72778_en.pdf [accessed 22 February 2016] Research: What it is, what it does, how it does it and how it is supported. [online] iii Lyall, C. et al. (2011) Identifying key success factors in the quest for interdisciplinary knowledge [online], xiv Straub, R. and Schedlowski, M (2009) available: http://www.innogen.ac.uk/downloads/ Positionspapier des German Endocrine Brain QUEST-Interdisciplinarity-FINAL-report-310111.pdf Immune Network zur interdisziplinären [accessed 22 February 2016] biomedizinischen Forschung in Deutschland iv  [online] (Translation from: Bei Verbundprojekten Bammer, G. (2012) Strengthening Interdisciplinary sollte der Aspekt der Core Facility zur Bereitstellung Research: What it is, what it does, how it does it & von Techniken noch mehr in den Mittelpunkt gestellt how it is supported. [online]. The Australian Council werden. Dazu sollte die geförderte Universität http://www.acola. of Learned Academies, available: disziplinübergreifende Core Facilities anbieten, die org.au/PDF/Strengthening%20Interdisciplinary%20 als stabile Einrichtung für einen größeren Zeitraum Research.pdf [accessed 22 February 2016] von mindestens 10 Jahren bestehen bleiben. Im v Blackwell, A. et al. (2009) Radical innovation: Rahmen der Förderung eines Verbundprojektes crossing knowledge boundaries with an einer solchen Universität sollten diese Core interdisciplinary teams [online]. University of Facilties ein zentrales Element der Förderung Cambridge, available: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ werden, so dass die von der Universität angebotenen techreports/UCAM-CL-TR- überdisziplinären Einrichtungen stabilisiert und auf 760.pdf [accessed 22 February 2016] dem neusten Stand gehalten werden können (dies gilt vi  für die Personalstruktur als auch für die technische Lyall, C. et al. (2013) The role of funding agencies Ausrüstung)) in creating interdisciplinary knowledge [online]. University of Edinburgh, available: http://www. xv Dzeng E. (2013) How to inspire interdisciplinarity: research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/6198642/Lyall_Bruce_ lessons from the collegiate system [online]. The et_al_Pre_print.pdf [accessed 22 February 2016] Guardian, available: http://www.theguardian.com/ vii  higher-education-network/blog/2013/mar/15/ Adunmo, K. et al (2013) Pulling it Together [online]. interdisciplinary-academic-universities-research European Union Policy Brief, NET4SOCIETY, [accessed 22 February 2016] available: http://www.net4society.eu/_media/PB_ N4S_FINAL.pdf [accessed 22 February 2016] xvi König, T. and Gorman, M. (2015) The challenge of funding interdisciplinary research. A look inside viii Marsden, W. et al (2011) A Short Guide for research funding agencies [online], available: Funders of Interdisciplinary Research [online] http://www.academia.edu/11558872/The_challenge_

ISSTI Briefing Note (Number 8), available: of_funding_interdisciplinary_research._A_look_inside_ http://www.ei.udelar.edu.uy/resources/1/9/0/0/9_ research_funding_agencies [accessed 22 February dc84029d7fea103/19009_05f92f8bdd4625d.pdf 2016] [accessed 22 February 2016] xvii Luukkonen, T. et al. (2015) Evaluation practices ix Straub, R. and Schedlowski, M (2009) in the selection of ground-breaking research Positionspapier des German Endocrine proposals [online], available: http://www.wwtf.at/ Brain Immune Network zur interdisziplinären upload/Luukkonen_Stampfer_Strassnig_Evaluation_ biomedizinischen Forschung in Deutschland groundbreaking_research_working_paper.pdf http://www.gebin.org/fileadmin/ [online], available: [accessed 22 February 2016] template/media/Positionspapier0709.pdf [accessed 22 February 2016] (Translation from: Die übliche xviii König, T. and Gorman, M. (2015) The challenge 3-Jahresförderung für typische Einzelprojektanträge of funding interdisciplinary research. A look inside ist kontraproduktiv, da gerade bei interdisziplinären research funding agencies [online] Projekten die Anlaufphase mindestens 2 Jahre dauert.)

46 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report xix Luukkonen, T. et al. (2015) Evaluation practices xxxii Marsden, W. et al (2011) A Short Guide for in the selection of ground-breaking research Funders of Interdisciplinary Research [online] proposals [online] ISSTI Briefing Note (Number 8) xx Ibid. xxxiii Marzano, M. et al (2006) Working to make interdisciplinarity work: Investing in xxi König, T. and Gorman, M. (2015) The challenge of communication and interpersonal relationships funding interdisciplinary research. A look inside [online], Journal of Agricultural Economics, research funding agencies [online] available: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/403 xxii Ibid. [accessed 22 February 2016] xxiii Luukkonen, T. et al. (2015) Evaluation practices xxxiv Strang, V. and McLeish, T. (2015) in the selection of ground-breaking research Evaluating Interdisciplinary Research: proposals [online] a practical guide [online]. Durham https://www.dur.ac.uk/ xxiv  University, available: Lyall, C. et al. (2011) Identifying key success resources/ias/publications/StrangandMcLeish. factors in the quest for interdisciplinary EvaluatingInterdisciplinaryResearch.July2015_2.pdf knowledge [online] [accessed 22 February 2016] xxv Marsden, W. et al (2011) A Short Guide for Funders of Interdisciplinary Research [online] ISSTI Briefing Note (Number 8) xxvi Lyall, C. et al. (2011) Identifying key success factors in the quest for interdisciplinary knowledge [online] xxvii Blackwell, A. et al. (2009) Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with interdisciplinary teams [online]. University of Cambridge xxviii Callard, F. and Fitzgerald, D. (2015) Rethinking Interdisciplinarity Across The Social Sciences And Neurosciences [online]. Durham University, available: http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/ doifinder/10.1057/9781137407962 [accessed 22 February 2016] xxix Ibid. xxx Lyall et al. (2011) Key success factors in the quest for interdisciplinary knowledge [online], ESRC Innogen Centre, available: http://www. innogen.ac.uk/downloads/Key-Success-Factors- Interdisciplinary.pdf [accessed 22 February 2016] xxxi Straub, R. and Schedlowski, M (2009) Positionspapier des German Endocrine Brain Immune Network zur interdisziplinären biomedizinischen Forschung in Deutschland [online] (Translation from: Forschungsförderer sollten bei Verbundprojekten dafür sorgen, dass interdisziplinäre Lehrkonzepte integriert werden (das wird von der DFG für Sonderforschungsbereiche bereits gefordert). Daneben könnten Förderer auch gezielt langfristige interdisziplinäre Lehrkonzepte an den Universitäten etablieren, die über die Förderzeit eines üblichen Verbundprojektes hinausreichen.)

Research conducted by djsresearch.com 47 3 Pavilion Lane, Strines, Stockport, Cheshire, Sk6 7GH +44 (0)1663 767 857 djsresearch.co.uk

48 Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report